All right, here’s what you need to know about the Stow Lake thing (oh, more here as well):
The vote against hanging on with the existing tenant, the one what’s filed a lawsuit, was five to zero from those people who poured over all the competing bids.
So, the question to the hysterics at SaveStowLake is why did the existing tenant lose 5-0? Do you wanna say that the five were hand-picked recruits for ghastly pursuits, well, then, come out and say it, allege it. I mean, there are reasons the existing tenant lost, right? They have been detailed, in authentic-looking, hand-written notes. If you want to find corruption, I invite to look there.
(And of course, Supervisor Eric Mar, who seldom finds himself “in the pockets of the corporations” or wherever, stabbed you in the back or something. Fine.)
Oh, in other business, this statement from the Northside rag is a lie:
“The Ortegas even offered to more than double their yearly base rent to $315,000 and run the boathouse as-is, but Ginsburg’s cash-strapped department turned them down.”
I know where this idea comes from, it comes from the end of a hearing at City Hall, but you can’t quote a clause as a complete sentence, that’s the basic problem with that.
All right, first some duckies from Stow Lake, and then, after the jump, all the deets on why Ortega won the contract.
Enjoy.
